Funkstain wrote:There is a reachable limit, by which I mean there is a reachable tipping point - the point at which if x millions of people are at this tipping point then systematic change starts to happen. So the bit we disagree on is not the obvious (you can always do more), it's the "it wouldn't really make a difference". I believe that if enough people did enough then it would.Paul the sparky wrote:Like, no matter what you do, you could always do more. There's not a reachable limit is there? [...] It just wouldn't really make a difference if they did. No point in owning that unless you want to flagellate yourself over the guilt
That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.Funkstain wrote:Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure
hunk wrote:Don't forget there's also a time limit to reach that tipping point.
monkey wrote:That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.Funkstain wrote:Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure
monkey wrote:That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.Funkstain wrote:Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure
Funkstain wrote:thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do
handsofblue wrote:And there is no incentive for short sighted governments to legislate for less fossil fuel useage.
No I said individual action was slapdash which probably isn't the best word. It's very flawed and, a lot of the time, you may be unwittingly doing more harm than good. The examples you've picked are very well known and pretty clear cut.Funkstain wrote:really? so you're saying (if you allow me to extend your point to its conclusion) we cannot take positive action because we have absolutely no way to gauge if we are, in fact, taking positive action? You believe that (say) flying or driving less is unclear in its benefits? or that not eating red meat, almost regardless of what we could replace it with, isn't a net positive? I mean I'm not asking for an exact weighing up - I'm asking for whether the scale is balanced or goes one way or the other. I'm fairly damn certain that giving up meat, almost regardless of what I replace it with, shows the balance scales net positive to environment. Disagree?monkey wrote:That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.Funkstain wrote:Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure
handsofblue wrote:That assumes the UK govt cares about skilling up workers for domestic energy production rather than lining their pockets from Russian oligarchs.
LivDiv wrote:Yeah I would agree there. It opens they question of why don't they? Otherwise its a dead end.Funkstain wrote:thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do
Funkstain wrote:human nature? i mean it does open that question: why don't I do more / less when I'm aware of the net good it could do, and, a bit like voting, it does make a difference if everyone does it, but everyone including me has to do it for it to make a difference. lazy, selfish, avoidant thinking, misplaced in faith in tech to come up with a miracle?LivDiv wrote:Yeah I would agree there. It opens they question of why don't they? Otherwise its a dead end.Funkstain wrote:thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do
We’re not going to make it to 2050.
What we are doing is inadequate. You don’t have to think too hard about it. Our civilization’s attempts to combat Extinction so far have resulted in…this. This dystopia we currently live in, where Europe’s on fire, inflation’s spiking, Covid never goes away, and all the rest of it. Our efforts are self-evidently inadequate. Things are this bad right now. Go ahead, and think about 2025. And shudder. Most of us can’t even imagine the world in 2030, or 2040. Will there even be one? What will be left of this thing we once called civilization?
We need to act now. What needs to be done? What an exasperating question. You know what needs to be done — pundits have just taught you to play dumb. We all know what needs to be done. We need a massive, massive wave of investment, now. To rebuild systems that are failing. Systems, this time, that last for a millennia. To figure out how to get clean water, clean energy, steel, iron, cement, fertilizer, without fossil fuels. We need to invest in a pan-Covid vaccine, and keep the next ones at bay. We need agricultural systems that can survive the killing heat. We need to give everyone on planet earth an education, an income, healthcare, to prevent tomorrow’s fascisms, pandemics, demagogues.
We need to do all this stuff. Pundits and leaders are clowns. They’re sitting there overthinking it, so that they have an excuse for inaction. But do you enjoy living in the 2020s? Like the megafires, inflation, never-ending pandemic, demagogues, lunatics, heat? Go ahead and tell me you want more of this. That’s what I thought. Nobody sane does. There’s no need to overthink it.
This isn't even anything to do with climate change.We need to give everyone on planet earth an education, an income, healthcare, to prevent tomorrow’s fascisms, pandemics, demagogues.
We all know what needs to be done. What’s missing is the will. The left is too busy debating pronouns to care about the fate of life on the planet. The center is too busy terrified of the right — and too busy laughing at the left — to lift a finger to save much of anything. The right, meanwhile, has figured out that scapegoating vulnerable groups is a magic spell that enchants working classes even more effectively than Marvel Superheroes in dumb outfits.
We need to act now. What needs to be done? What an exasperating question. You know what needs to be done — pundits have just taught you to play dumb. We all know what needs to be done. We need a massive, massive wave of investment, now. To rebuild systems that are failing. Systems, this time, that last for a millennia. To figure out how to get clean water, clean energy, steel, iron, cement, fertilizer, without fossil fuels.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!